I’m a liberal democrat horrified by the current Dr Seuss drama and normalization of censorship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you voted for this type of leadership, OP.

We warned you.

By the way, info/clips of Michelle O and Kamala are circulating. They LOVED Dr. Seuss! Lol!

I love Dr Seuss too. You now he wrote some 60 books right? I don't need to read the old ones with racist imagery. There are plenty of others to read my kids. And so much other literature out there I don't need to be reading only Dr Seuss books.

Why are people so fixated on a few books out of the millions that are out there? Oh I know, because the whole stupid culture war thing is the only topic the right has going for it.

Someone on another thread was arguing about the Nazi rune used as the design of the CPAC stage, saying it was obscure because probably only 1/1000 Americans even knew what it was, so therefore it didn't matter.

Well, I bet fewer than 1/1000 Americans have ever read all 6 of the books the publisher is no longer publishing, or even heard of them. So why are cons so verklempt over obscure books?

Because they based their decision on a ridiculous study published in the journal "Research on Diversity in Youth Literature." ( Yes, really)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-trnd/index.html


"That study, published in 2019, examined 50 books by Dr. Seuss and found 43 out of the 45 characters of color have "characteristics aligning with the definition of Orientalism," or the stereotypical, offensive portrayal of Asia. The two "African" characters, the study says, both have anti-Black characteristics."

"In ("The Cat's Quizzer"), the Japanese character is referred to as 'a Japanese,' has a bright yellow face, and is standing on what appears to be Mt. Fuji," the authors wrote.
Regarding "If I Ran the Zoo," the study points out another example of Orientalism and White supremacy.
"The three (and only three) Asian characters who are not wearing conical hats are carrying a White male on their heads in 'If I Ran the Zoo.' The White male is not only on top of, and being carried by, these Asian characters, but he is also holding a gun, illustrating dominance. The text beneath the Asian characters describes them as 'helpers who all wear their eyes at a slant' from 'countries no one can spell,'" the study authors wrote.

The study also argues that since the majority of human characters in Dr. Seuss' books are White, his works -- inadvertently or not -- center Whiteness and thus perpetuate White supremacy.

So what. They're a company. They can do what they want. You obviously dislike the company's choices. Sorry. Maybe you should boycott all of his works.

DP. Based on that logic, about 95 per cent of the books ever published fail the test.

Wait, you actually think that 95% of the books that have ever been published are about white people?

No, it's just a hyperbolic number. Do you really think I tried to count them all before I wrote my post? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you voted for this type of leadership, OP.

We warned you.

By the way, info/clips of Michelle O and Kamala are circulating. They LOVED Dr. Seuss! Lol!

I love Dr Seuss too. You now he wrote some 60 books right? I don't need to read the old ones with racist imagery. There are plenty of others to read my kids. And so much other literature out there I don't need to be reading only Dr Seuss books.

Why are people so fixated on a few books out of the millions that are out there? Oh I know, because the whole stupid culture war thing is the only topic the right has going for it.

Someone on another thread was arguing about the Nazi rune used as the design of the CPAC stage, saying it was obscure because probably only 1/1000 Americans even knew what it was, so therefore it didn't matter.

Well, I bet fewer than 1/1000 Americans have ever read all 6 of the books the publisher is no longer publishing, or even heard of them. So why are cons so verklempt over obscure books?

Because they based their decision on a ridiculous study published in the journal "Research on Diversity in Youth Literature." ( Yes, really)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-trnd/index.html


"That study, published in 2019, examined 50 books by Dr. Seuss and found 43 out of the 45 characters of color have "characteristics aligning with the definition of Orientalism," or the stereotypical, offensive portrayal of Asia. The two "African" characters, the study says, both have anti-Black characteristics."

"In ("The Cat's Quizzer"), the Japanese character is referred to as 'a Japanese,' has a bright yellow face, and is standing on what appears to be Mt. Fuji," the authors wrote.
Regarding "If I Ran the Zoo," the study points out another example of Orientalism and White supremacy.
"The three (and only three) Asian characters who are not wearing conical hats are carrying a White male on their heads in 'If I Ran the Zoo.' The White male is not only on top of, and being carried by, these Asian characters, but he is also holding a gun, illustrating dominance. The text beneath the Asian characters describes them as 'helpers who all wear their eyes at a slant' from 'countries no one can spell,'" the study authors wrote.

The study also argues that since the majority of human characters in Dr. Seuss' books are White, his works -- inadvertently or not -- center Whiteness and thus perpetuate White supremacy.

So what. They're a company. They can do what they want. You obviously dislike the company's choices. Sorry. Maybe you should boycott all of his works.

DP. Based on that logic, about 95 per cent of the books ever published fail the test.

Wait, you actually think that 95% of the books that have ever been published are about white people?

No, it's just a hyperbolic number. Do you really think I tried to count them all before I wrote my post? Wow.

I'm sure the number is true for books published in English.
Astrid Lindgren's daughter has had some text rewritten in the Pippi Longstocking books.
I think the stereotypes are glaring to me now, although I never noticed them for much of my life.
Nobody is coming to burn your old copies of Dr. Suess or Pippi Longstocking. I feel like this is sort of like white people (including myself) have had this party going on for a long time, other people have been showing up, and we don't know quite how to deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Oh, the Places Woke Upper Middle Class Fools With $150K of Student Loans Will Go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you voted for this type of leadership, OP.

We warned you.

By the way, info/clips of Michelle O and Kamala are circulating. They LOVED Dr. Seuss! Lol!

I love Dr Seuss too. You now he wrote some 60 books right? I don't need to read the old ones with racist imagery. There are plenty of others to read my kids. And so much other literature out there I don't need to be reading only Dr Seuss books.

Why are people so fixated on a few books out of the millions that are out there? Oh I know, because the whole stupid culture war thing is the only topic the right has going for it.

Someone on another thread was arguing about the Nazi rune used as the design of the CPAC stage, saying it was obscure because probably only 1/1000 Americans even knew what it was, so therefore it didn't matter.

Well, I bet fewer than 1/1000 Americans have ever read all 6 of the books the publisher is no longer publishing, or even heard of them. So why are cons so verklempt over obscure books?

Because they based their decision on a ridiculous study published in the journal "Research on Diversity in Youth Literature." ( Yes, really)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-trnd/index.html


"That study, published in 2019, examined 50 books by Dr. Seuss and found 43 out of the 45 characters of color have "characteristics aligning with the definition of Orientalism," or the stereotypical, offensive portrayal of Asia. The two "African" characters, the study says, both have anti-Black characteristics."

"In ("The Cat's Quizzer"), the Japanese character is referred to as 'a Japanese,' has a bright yellow face, and is standing on what appears to be Mt. Fuji," the authors wrote.
Regarding "If I Ran the Zoo," the study points out another example of Orientalism and White supremacy.
"The three (and only three) Asian characters who are not wearing conical hats are carrying a White male on their heads in 'If I Ran the Zoo.' The White male is not only on top of, and being carried by, these Asian characters, but he is also holding a gun, illustrating dominance. The text beneath the Asian characters describes them as 'helpers who all wear their eyes at a slant' from 'countries no one can spell,'" the study authors wrote.

The study also argues that since the majority of human characters in Dr. Seuss' books are White, his works -- inadvertently or not -- center Whiteness and thus perpetuate White supremacy.

So what. They're a company. They can do what they want. You obviously dislike the company's choices. Sorry. Maybe you should boycott all of his works.

DP. Based on that logic, about 95 per cent of the books ever published fail the test.

Wait, you actually think that 95% of the books that have ever been published are about white people?

No, it's just a hyperbolic number. Do you really think I tried to count them all before I wrote my post? Wow.

I'm sure the number is true for books published in English.
Astrid Lindgren's daughter has had some text rewritten in the Pippi Longstocking books.
I think the stereotypes are glaring to me now, although I never noticed them for much of my life.
Nobody is coming to burn your old copies of Dr. Suess or Pippi Longstocking. I feel like this is sort of like white people (including myself) have had this party going on for a long time, other people have been showing up, and we don't know quite how to deal with it.

I feel like you are part of a political agenda masquerading as compassion and you don't know it. When you find true compassion, you will know that people having feelings for certain things and not others is just part of who they are, and not an agenda of their own.

I never like Pippi Longstocking.

[Anonymous]

Dr Seuss hated white supremacists. He was a political cartoonist before making children's books. He was racist in his early years but eventually realized he was wrong and changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

No, they are not. Censorship is a government telling you what you can(or must) and cannot say, and fining or jailing you for disobeying. A company that decides to cease selling love volume publications is not censorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

No, they are not. Censorship is a government telling you what you can(or must) and cannot say, and fining or jailing you for disobeying. A company that decides to cease selling love volume publications is not censorship.

+1 and cancel culture is really just a boycott of companies, not censorship or cancelling. Someone unfriending you isn't cancel culture, it's them choosing who they don't want to be friends with because you are a vile human that loves Trump more than you love America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

No, they are not. Censorship is a government telling you what you can(or must) and cannot say, and fining or jailing you for disobeying. A company that decides to cease selling love volume publications is not censorship.

What's it called when a woke agenda infiltrates the minds of white elites who then hunt for real problems in the wrong places? Let me know when you have a name for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

No, they are not. Censorship is a government telling you what you can(or must) and cannot say, and fining or jailing you for disobeying. A company that decides to cease selling love volume publications is not censorship.

+1 and cancel culture is really just a boycott of companies, not censorship or cancelling. Someone unfriending you isn't cancel culture, it's them choosing who they don't want to be friends with because you are a vile human that loves Trump more than you love America.

Was Dr. Suess being boycotted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

No, they are not. Censorship is a government telling you what you can(or must) and cannot say, and fining or jailing you for disobeying. A company that decides to cease selling love volume publications is not censorship.

What's it called when a woke agenda infiltrates the minds of white elites who then hunt for real problems in the wrong places? Let me know when you have a name for this.

What's a "woke agenda"? Is that anything like trying to overthrow the government and force Congress vote count fake votes for Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

No, they are not. Censorship is a government telling you what you can(or must) and cannot say, and fining or jailing you for disobeying. A company that decides to cease selling love volume publications is not censorship.

What's it called when a woke agenda infiltrates the minds of white elites who then hunt for real problems in the wrong places? Let me know when you have a name for this.

It's called you making a mountain out of a molehill. Sorry you don’t like the “woke agenda” and are upset that you can’t control what other people think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

No, they are not. Censorship is a government telling you what you can(or must) and cannot say, and fining or jailing you for disobeying. A company that decides to cease selling love volume publications is not censorship.

+1 and cancel culture is really just a boycott of companies, not censorship or cancelling. Someone unfriending you isn't cancel culture, it's them choosing who they don't want to be friends with because you are a vile human that loves Trump more than you love America.

Was Dr. Suess being boycotted?

Dunno, you tell me. I've never actually seen the six books they're talking about. You're more than welcome to buy them though. Also, Dr Seuss is dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

No, they are not. Censorship is a government telling you what you can(or must) and cannot say, and fining or jailing you for disobeying. A company that decides to cease selling love volume publications is not censorship.

What's it called when a woke agenda infiltrates the minds of white elites who then hunt for real problems in the wrong places? Let me know when you have a name for this.

It's called you making a mountain out of a molehill. Sorry you don’t like the “woke agenda” and are upset that you can’t control what other people think.

Sorry you can't control my mind. Or my speech either. At least not yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ahh, geez. Another thread that makes me fearful for the future of our country when people can’t discern the difference between censorship and the free market. I’m a moderate but I really hate the right at this moment for all their fear-mongering and arm-waving on click Nate topics rather than the important stuff we need to get done.

What is the name for the free market cancelling a beloved cultual icon in accordance with an ideology I don't agree with There is no better word than censoring right now. If the use it enough that way, that becomes the new definition. This happens all the time with other words. Why fight over words? You know what they are talking about.

It’s pretty clear that you and many others on this thread don’t know what they are talking about.

Are you another person who is going to set me straight on what I believe and what words I am allowed to use? When are you going to listen for understanding instead of just confirmation of your biases?

Decisions by private entities are not censorship.

Well they are now. Deal with it. It's going to get worse.

No, they are not. Censorship is a government telling you what you can(or must) and cannot say, and fining or jailing you for disobeying. A company that decides to cease selling love volume publications is not censorship.

What's it called when a woke agenda infiltrates the minds of white elites who then hunt for real problems in the wrong places? Let me know when you have a name for this.

It's called you making a mountain out of a molehill. Sorry you don’t like the “woke agenda” and are upset that you can’t control what other people think.

I have no idea what a woke agenda is. Is people choosing not to buy six Dr Seuss books a "woke agenda"? I must have not got the memo because no one told me not to buy books. This thread is literally the first I heard of this. Who cares if people don't buy them? Now that Democrats are back in power, we're back to fake issues that no one really cares about. Was this on Tucker Carlson or something?